[:en]Madam Justice Andra Pollak in “Sanokr-Moskva” LLC v. Tradeoil Management Inc., 2018 ONSC 2967 decided that a plaintiff’s principal claims for recognition and enforcement of an international commercial award must be heard on the merits at the same time as plaintiff’s alternative claims for breach of contract. Agreeing that partial summary judgment should be considered a rare procedure reserved for issues that may be readily bifurcated, Pollak J. sent the parties to trial on the merits of both recognition and enforcement and breach of contract. Pollak J.’s caution is of particular relevance to arbitration counsel considering whether to combine, in one court application, claims for recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards and other claims. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court refuses partial summary judgment for recognition and enforcement of award which overlaps alternative breach of contract claim – #111[:]”
[:en]Ontario – costs awarded for late, ‘cavalier’, speculative motion for disclosure of arbitration documents – #103[:]
[:en]Master C. Wiebe in ABCO One Corporation v. Pomerleau Inc., 2018 ONSC 4480 issued a costs decision following ABCO One Corporation’s (“ABCO”) decision to withdraw its motion for production for inspection of transcripts of evidence, document briefs and expert reports filed in an arbitration between Pomerleau Inc. (“Pomerleau”), general contractor, and the Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) regarding construction of a street car facility (the “Pomerleau-TTC Arbitration”). Not only did Master Wiebe determine that ABCO’s motion fell well short of demonstrating ‘compelling evidence of necessity’, he also determined that that ABCO failed to bring its motion with diligence and care. The brief reasons do not question the ability to bring such motions but only that they be timely and justified, and seek materials necessary to the applicant’s ability to make its case. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – costs awarded for late, ‘cavalier’, speculative motion for disclosure of arbitration documents – #103[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court exercises discretion to refuse a stay not sought by defendants – #100[:]
[:en]Enabling Plaintiff to access the court’s own procedural rules to strike pleadings and grant summary judgment, Madam Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin in Hoya Lens Canada Inc. v. 2364141 Ontario Inc., 2018 ONSC 4338 dismissed a motion, not made by Defendants, to stay the litigation in favour of arbitration. Doing so allowed her to confirm her jurisdiction over the parties and proceed to summarily resolve their dispute despite Defendants’ failure or refusal to participate. Her approach sets out a three-step path for other plaintiffs struggling to advance resolution of their dispute despite having earlier agreed to arbitrate. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court exercises discretion to refuse a stay not sought by defendants – #100[:]”
[:en]Ontario – award has binding effect despite post-award issues and tribunal’s willingness to consider them – #099[:]
[:en]Ontario’s Court of Appeal in Popack v. Lipszyc, 2018 ONCA 635 explored the meaning of the term “binding” and whether parties’ post-award conduct can delay the moment by which their award becomes binding on them. Absent the parties’ agreement that they can appeal their award on grounds stated by them and available under applicable arbitration legislation, parties resisting the binding nature of the award are constrained to challenge their award within the narrow grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on June 21, 1985, as amended on July 7, 2006, (“Model Law”) and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the “New York Convention”). A party’s stated intention to return to the arbitral tribunal to have post-award issues decided and the tribunal’s willingness to consider those issues do not serve together or alone to delay the binding effect of the final award. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – award has binding effect despite post-award issues and tribunal’s willingness to consider them – #099[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court refuses to accept unilateral revocations of parties’ unwritten agreement to arbitrate – #097[:]
[:en]Madam Justice Carole J. Brown in Zenith Aluminum Systems Limited v. 2335945 Ontario Inc., 2018 ONSC 4199 kept the bar firmly high, tripping claims that parties could unilaterally revoke their earlier unwritten agreement to arbitrate. Despite both parties, at separate moments, asserting that they were no longer bound by their agreement, Brown J. agreed with Claimant who now wanted to continue its arbitration despite having initiated litigation. She held that the parties’ conduct had affirmed their ongoing agreement to arbitrate and dismissed Respondent’s claims that both parties had revoked their agreement. Claimant’s earlier written notice that it withdrew its notice to arbitrate and Respondent’s later change of heart were each insufficient by themselves to serve as revocation. Applying “ordinary rules of contract law“, an arbitration agreement could only be revoked by an agreement of both parties and not unmatched, unilateral revocations. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court refuses to accept unilateral revocations of parties’ unwritten agreement to arbitrate – #097[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court’s resistance to re-using findings from earlier adjudications applies in arbitral proceedings – #096[:]
[:en]In Nasir v. Kochmanski, 2018 ONSC 3052, Mr. Justice Peter A. Daley dismissed Plaintiffs’ application for a trial adjournment which they based on, among other grounds, their intention to obtain and use at trial certain negative commentary on Defendant’s expert witness generated in other, earlier court and tribunal proceedings. Daley J.’s reasoning and the authorities referred to apply to the declared use in commercial arbitration of other materials produced for or by tribunal hearings, including arbitrations created by legislation. Prior to seeking to use those materials, arbitral parties must (a) ensure that no legislated prohibition exists regarding subsequent use in a new venue and (b) anticipate that tribunals will be vigilant to exclude admissible materials which are either unhelpful or lack proof of the fuller context in which they issued. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court’s resistance to re-using findings from earlier adjudications applies in arbitral proceedings – #096[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court rebuffs critique of commonplace, frequently enforced, understandable arbitration clause – #095[:]
[:en]In V Hazelton Limited v. Perfect Smile Dental Inc., 2018 ONSC 3958, Mr. Justice Edward M. Morgan dismissed a landlord’s objection to an arbitration clause, stating that the wording was clear enough to those familiar with commercial leases. Morgan J.’s comments can lend themselves to other types of contracts, tipping the balance if need be in favour of enforcing clauses that, while falling short of ideal wording, are commonplace, frequently enforced and likely to be understood without trouble by an experienced arbitrator. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court rebuffs critique of commonplace, frequently enforced, understandable arbitration clause – #095[:]”
[:en]Ontario – courts must not pre-empt arbitrator decision on jurisdiction by limiting scope of issues in stay order – #086[:]
[:en]In 10313033 Canada Inc. v. 2418973 Ontario Inc. et al., 2018 ONSC 2406, Madam Justice Sally Gomery declined to limit the scope of the issues referred to the arbitrator. She determined that, absent exceptional circumstances, courts must not pre-empt an arbitrator’s ruling on jurisdiction. Following the stay granted, the parties could make their own submissions directly to the arbitrator regarding the issues which could or could not be within the undertaking to arbitrate or which were no longer in dispute following prior court rulings. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – courts must not pre-empt arbitrator decision on jurisdiction by limiting scope of issues in stay order – #086[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court accepts both parties’ waiver of arbitration but notes impact on test for injunction – #085[:]
[:en]Both parties can waive their undertaking to arbitrate but doing so has its own knock-on effects. In Armes and 2331513 Ontario Inc. et al v. Barlett, 2018 ONSC 1396, Mr. Justice R. John Harper accepted that neither party had or wished to undertake arbitration but did consider one party’s waiver as having a role, however slight but worthy of mention, in considering whether that party demonstrated irreparable damage. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court accepts both parties’ waiver of arbitration but notes impact on test for injunction – #085[:]”
[:en]Ontario – litigation offers proof of concept that arbitration matters – #081[:]
[:en]In Network Site Services Ltd. v. Town of Oakville, 2018 ONSC 2599, Mr. Justice David A. Broad resolved litigation commenced in early 2012 regarding a road reconstruction project certified to have been substantially performed on September 30, 2011. The parties to the litigation had entered into a detailed set of contracts which identified mediation and arbitration but made neither mandatory. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – litigation offers proof of concept that arbitration matters – #081[:]”